New guy

[Dodub]

For the ranking of Aikman, Elway, Marino, Young, and Favre.

One thing is certain, Aikman and Elway proved that if you have a dominating running game and a very good to great offensive line... you're winning more Super Bowls.

I think Marino and Favre were victims of their own success and legend. Both Miami and Green Bay honestly believed that all they needed to be contenders were Dan and Brett. Both of those teams could have tried a lot harder to build more talented teams. Instead they mainly focused on adding guys through the draft and only getting bargain bucket FAs.

Young, I am a bit biased and think he is one of the greats, but I also feel like his play dropped off in the playoffs most of the time. Sometimes by injury and sometimes the refs screwed him, but we as fans definitely didn't get enough of the '94 playoff version of Young. Who knows what could have happened if that guy would have shown up more than once.

Anyway, I'd go Marino, Young, Elway, Aikman, Favre.

I agree with you on Marino as he didn't have near the talent around him that these other guys did. But Favre had EASILY the same kind of talent around him in his superbowl teams that guys like Elway had. People don't realize just how many studs there were on that teaam

 

[threelittleturds]

I agree with you on Marino as he didn't have near the talent around him that these other guys did. But Favre had EASILY the same kind of talent around him in his superbowl teams that guys like Elway had. People don't realize just how many studs there were on that teaam

I think people know, they just want to pretend that he did everything and was a god... or maybe they actually believed all of the bullshit Madden would say on every nationally televised game.

 

[threelittleturds]

Another good post. My figuring was Joe would have won with the 49ers in '94 - his last year - and he also might have in '93.

I'm not sure Montana would have made it through the Eagles and Lions games in 1994. Steve Young was getting his ass kicked back there in those games... and I don't know if Joe's 38 year old body would have held up to that beating.

 

[NinerSickness]

Anyway, I'd go Marino, Young, Elway, Aikman, Favre.

Just out of curiosity, have you seen Young's numbers against the average VS these other guys? I'm not saying that's all there is, but Young's numbers against the average (in YPA, completion percentage & passer rating) absolutely blows the rest of the pack away. That's why I always say Young was the most dangerous man with a ball in his hands who ever played the game.

On the same token, Elway's numbers in those categories were actually BELOW the average (the average of any QB not the average of HOF QBs). That's why I'd put Elway at the bottom of that list.

My top 5 QBs of the modern era (in alphabetical order) are:

Peyton Manning
Marino
Montana
Kurt Warner (dude was surprisingly efficient)
Young

...And Montana is the best of that list.

*Too young to have seen Unitas, Staubach, Star, Graham etc.

*Brady would be in Marino's spot, but his legacy is tainted 'cause the Pats cheated. So I don't put him on any list.

 

[NinerSickness]

I'm not sure Montana would have made it through the Eagles and Lions games in 1994. Steve Young was getting his ass kicked back there in those games... and I don't know if Joe's 38 year old body would have held up to that beating.

The '93 Niners' OL had more injuries than any Niners' OL I can remember. Steve Young did so much with the crappiest O-lines / running games it's unbelievable how little credit he gets.

If the Niners didn't completely neglect the OL and running game in the Young era, he might've played another few years.

 

[threelittleturds]

Sickness-

Yeah, I do remember those stats you posted about QBs vs the Peer avgs of their era. You're right, from that Steve Young just blew everyone away. I do think Young is one of the best to ever play and certainly better than Aikman or Favre, but I think there are a few playoff games that the 49ers could have won if he just simply played better.

Steve might have been a victim of his own success too. Maybe the 49ers neglected the O-Line and RB because they sort of had an extra RB in the backfield.

 

[NinerSickness]

Sickness-

Yeah, I do remember those stats you posted about QBs vs the Peer avgs of their era. You're right, from that Steve Young just blew everyone away. I do think Young is one of the best to ever play and certainly better than Aikman or Favre, but I think there are a few playoff games that the 49ers could have won if he just simply played better.

Steve might have been a victim of his own success too. Maybe the 49ers neglected the O-Line and RB because they sort of had an extra RB in the backfield.

I agree with 100% of this TLB. Young had a chance to be the greatest QB of all time IMO. His timing, accuracy, ability to get rid of the ball quickly, ability to scan the field without turning his head & his speed were the perfect combination. But he simply didn't do enough in the post season to be in the same level as Montana. Plus the fact that he was always running for his life shortened his career IMO.

The most frustrating thing about the Montana / Young thing is that both of them screwed over the other one's legacy a little bit. Young might've won more rings if Montana weren't around to keep him on the bench, and Montana might've won another 1 or 2 trophies if Young weren't so good that he forced Montana out. It was truly a gluttony of talent...

I'll never get over how good the Young era could've been if he just had a little more luck though. I think his entire OL was injured and / or playing hurt in '93. He lost both Rice & Hearst before the playoffs in '97. He lost both Bryant Young & Hearst in '98.

It's just like this last Super Bowl. You can have the best team in the league, but sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way (like if the referees make sure it doesn't in SB 47s case).

 

[threelittleturds]

I agree with 100% of this TLB. Young had a chance to be the greatest QB of all time IMO. His timing, accuracy, ability to get rid of the ball quickly, ability to scan the field without turning his head & his speed were the perfect combination. But he simply didn't do enough in the post season to be in the same level as Montana. Plus the fact that he was always running for his life shortened his career IMO.

The most frustrating thing about the Montana / Young thing is that both of them screwed over the other one's legacy a little bit. Young might've won more rings if Montana weren't around to keep him on the bench, and Montana might've won another 1 or 2 trophies if Young weren't so good that he forced Montana out. It was truly a gluttony of talent...

I'll never get over how good the Young era could've been if he just had a little more luck though. I think his entire OL was injured and / or playing hurt in '93. He lost both Rice & Hearst before the playoffs in '97. He lost both Bryant Young & Hearst in '98.

It's just like this last Super Bowl. You can have the best team in the league, but sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way (like if the referees make sure it doesn't in SB 47s case).

Yeah, Steve Young did turn into the ultimate "what if" for 49ers fans. You left out the, what if the 49ers didn't lose Deion Sanders and Ricky Watters to Free Agency in 1995.

 

[aarrgghh]

> Oh, so it's all about playoff success?

If you'll recall that far back, you asked about Aikman and I answered about Aikman specifically. Your response that this must mean I consider Joe Flacco to be one of the all time greats by extension is just a stretch, frankly. Get it? Extension? Stretch? Thank you, I'm here all week.

 

[aarrgghh]

I agree with 100% of this TLB. Young had a chance to be the greatest QB of all time IMO. His timing, accuracy, ability to get rid of the ball quickly, ability to scan the field without turning his head & his speed were the perfect combination. But he simply didn't do enough in the post season to be in the same level as Montana. Plus the fact that he was always running for his life shortened his career IMO.

The most frustrating thing about the Montana / Young thing is that both of them screwed over the other one's legacy a little bit. Young might've won more rings if Montana weren't around to keep him on the bench, and Montana might've won another 1 or 2 trophies if Young weren't so good that he forced Montana out. It was truly a gluttony of talent...

I'll never get over how good the Young era could've been if he just had a little more luck though. I think his entire OL was injured and / or playing hurt in '93. He lost both Rice & Hearst before the playoffs in '97. He lost both Bryant Young & Hearst in '98.

It's just like this last Super Bowl. You can have the best team in the league, but sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way (like if the referees make sure it doesn't in SB 47s case).

LOL. Young played for an inferior team and managed to carry them as far as he did due solely to his greatness? I disagree. The 49ers were one of the best teams in the league during the Young era, certainly capable of beating one or several of the Cowboys or Packers teams they lost to, and the facts is that he really lived up to his (playoff) potential only one year. If you discount the one great Super Bowl run, he would have an overall losing record in the playoffs, and in the case of most great quarterbacks, including Young, that is the most important part of their legacy.

Another thing I wonder about; why do people think the switch from Montana to Young took place at the right time? I think it was one of Seifert's two biggest mistakes. If you have the greatest quarterback ever to play the game (Joe was considered to be that while he was still actively playing) why in the world would anyone consider a switch while that guy was still capable of putting on cleats?

 

[imac_21]

> Oh, so it's all about playoff success?

If you'll recall that far back, you asked about Aikman and I answered about Aikman specifically. Your response that this must mean I consider Joe Flacco to be one of the all time greats by extension is just a stretch, frankly. Get it? Extension? Stretch? Thank you, I'm here all week.

I get it. The playoff argument only applies to Aikman because it's the only way you can justify ranking him over Young. Any other players that would be all time greats based solely on playoff success we consider other factors as well because they aren't good enough.

You want to pick and choose what you base your argument around.

Are you a politician?

 

[imac_21]

LOL. Young played for an inferior team and managed to carry them as far as he did due solely to his greatness? I disagree. The 49ers were one of the best teams in the league during the Young era, certainly capable of beating one or several of the Cowboys or Packers teams they lost to, and the facts is that he really lived up to his (playoff) potential only one year. If you discount the one great Super Bowl run, he would have an overall losing record in the playoffs, and in the case of most great quarterbacks, including Young, that is the most important part of their legacy.

Another thing I wonder about; why do people think the switch from Montana to Young took place at the right time? I think it was one of Seifert's two biggest mistakes. If you have the greatest quarterback ever to play the game (Joe was considered to be that while he was still actively playing) why in the world would anyone consider a switch while that guy was still capable of putting on cleats?

I'm pretty sure Joe Montana is still capable of putting on cleats. Should we still be sending him out to QB?

 

[erckm510]

LOL. Young played for an inferior team and managed to carry them as far as he did due solely to his greatness? I disagree. The 49ers were one of the best teams in the league during the Young era, certainly capable of beating one or several of the Cowboys or Packers teams they lost to, and the facts is that he really lived up to his (playoff) potential only one year. If you discount the one great Super Bowl run, he would have an overall losing record in the playoffs, and in the case of most great quarterbacks, including Young, that is the most important part of their legacy.

Another thing I wonder about; why do people think the switch from Montana to Young took place at the right time? I think it was one of Seifert's two biggest mistakes. If you have the greatest quarterback ever to play the game (Joe was considered to be that while he was still actively playing) why in the world would anyone consider a switch while that guy was still capable of putting on cleats?

So Peyton Manning in your eyes must be worse then Troy Aikman. So yeah I don't agree that playoffs is the most important part of a legacy.

And why do people think the switch from Montana to Young took place at the right time? Because he won the freaking MVP in 1992. Let's replace the MVP with a 37 year old. Brilliant!

 

[aarrgghh]

I get it. The playoff argument only applies to Aikman because it's the only way you can justify ranking him over Young. Any other players that would be all time greats based solely on playoff success we consider other factors as well because they aren't good enough.

You want to pick and choose what you base your argument around.

Are you a politician?

Sigh. You asked about Aikman. I answered about Aikman. How does that translate to picking-and-choosing on my end? You know what else? You are entirely within your right to disagree with what I think without having to demean, or berate, or be sarcastic or nasty. I try to do that. Sometimes unfortunately I find myself responding in kind, but generally I will be respectful if you are.

 

[aarrgghh]

So Peyton Manning in your eyes must be worse then Troy Aikman. So yeah I don't agree that playoffs is the most important part of a legacy.

And why do people think the switch from Montana to Young took place at the right time? Because he won the freaking MVP in 1992. Let's replace the MVP with a 37 year old. Brilliant!

As far as I am concerned, yes. Aikman was a better playoff quarterback than Manning has been. Manning's career is not yet finished, so that story is not complete.

As far as the MVP stuff goes, Young had an impressive regular season without a doubt. Then he committed what 4 turnovers against the Redskins and almost gave that game away, followed by an equally unimpressive outing against Dallas. Do you think Montana would not have done that well? It's possible, but not very likely. Joe never had a playoff run that bad. Also, he was 36 in '92. Brilliant right back at you.

 

[erckm510]

As far as I am concerned, yes. Aikman was a better playoff quarterback than Manning has been. Manning's career is not yet finished, so that story is not complete.

As far as the MVP stuff goes, Young had an impressive regular season without a doubt. Then he committed what 4 turnovers against the Redskins and almost gave that game away, followed by an equally unimpressive outing against Dallas. Do you think Montana would not have done that well? It's possible, but not very likely. Joe never had a playoff run that bad. Also, he was 36 in '92. Brilliant right back at you.

Not really helping your argument. You would know that Joe wasn't fully healthy til the tail end of the 92 season when Young was having an MVP year. So yes you would want to replace the MVP with a 37 year old who's missed almost 2 full seasons in the 1993 season. Brilliant!

And if you think old Montana would be good to have against a D like the Cowboys then more power to you. I'm thinking he's more likely to get injured.

 

[aarrgghh]

OK, so just because Seifert didn't let Joe on the field until the last half of the last game of the season doesn't mean he wasn't healthy, but let's table that for a moment. Also, Joe retired in '94 at age 38, so he was likely 36, as I stated in '92, not 37. Brilliant!

Injury was always a possibility with Joe. The Giants found that out early, and it was part of their strategy, knock Joe out of the game and win the game. They did it 3 times and that's why I hate them (really mean the word hate in this case). Woulda and coulda. IMO, Joe was a better player anytime in his career that was Young. I do respect your right to disagree. That's what a message board is for (presumably).

 

[erckm510]

OK, so just because Seifert didn't let Joe on the field until the last half of the last game of the season doesn't mean he wasn't healthy, but let's table that for a moment. Also, Joe retired in '94 at age 38, so he was likely 36, as I stated in '92, not 37. Brilliant!

Injury was always a possibility with Joe. The Giants found that out early, and it was part of their strategy, knock Joe out of the game and win the game. They did it 3 times and that's why I hate them (really mean the word hate in this case). Woulda and coulda. IMO, Joe was a better player anytime in his career that was Young. I do respect your right to disagree. That's what a message board is for (presumably).

Joe wasn't healthy at the start of training camp in 92. His elbow injury still lingered. By the time he was fully healthy Young was in the middle of his MVP season at least. Yes he was 36 in '92. The simple point I was trying to make which I'll spell out for you is that there was zero percent chance of Young being replaced during his MVP season of '92. So the soonest Joe could take over is in '93 when he was 37. So yes it still stands that you would want to replace the MVP with a 37 year old. Clear now? Brilliant!

So now you're saying that 1994 Montana was better then 1994 Young? Alright then.

 

[TobyTyler]

Hi all,

I'm new to the board, so I thought I'd introduce myself: I'm a long time fan of the 49ers. I never instigate stuff. I hated the Alex Smith era with a passion. even when the team got so good they could win, even with him, I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop.

On the other hand, I'm extremely happy now we have a real quarterback in Kaepernick. IMO, this kid could end up being great, as in almost, possibly, maybe, hopefully, someone who might someday be mentioned in the same breath as Joe. He does have awesome potential. It's amazing isn't it? Most teams never have that one HOF QB and we have a very good candidate for a second one.

Anyway, I'm very excited about the season - and it's almost here. Go 49ers!

You are one of those boring guys, huh? Welcome anyway.

 

[aarrgghh]

Joe wasn't healthy at the start of training camp in 92. His elbow injury still lingered. By the time he was fully healthy Young was in the middle of his MVP season at least. Yes he was 36 in '92. The simple point I was trying to make which I'll spell out for you is that there was zero percent chance of Young being replaced during his MVP season of '92. So the soonest Joe could take over is in '93 when he was 37. So yes it still stands that you would want to replace the MVP with a 37 year old. Clear now? Brilliant!

So now you're saying that 1994 Montana was better then 1994 Young? Alright then.

LOL. Let me spell this out for you:

Montana was better than Young. The Chiefs actually were one of the teams that beat the 49ers that year, making Joe the first and only player ever to beat every team in the league (to that point, I believe Favre has since done it and there are a couple of teams that came into the league after he retired, Panthers and Jaguars I believe, and Titans, who are the renamed Oilers).

“Joe's a hero, and I'm a schmuck.” Young was quoted as saying after that game. Brilliant!